Lauren Ivey ParadigmLast changed 4/28 10:42P EDT
You probably know me better as my maiden name, Lauren Donnenfeld.
2013- Present Co-Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School.
2012-2013-I was one of Vanderbilt's debate graduate assistants.
2007-2011-I debated for Emory University for four years. I started as a novice in college.
Please add me to the email chain: Ldonnen@gmail.com
I believe debate is an educational activity and it should be something I am proud to show to other teachers, parents, administrators, etc. Therefore, you should not engage in any offensive strategies/ morally repugnant arguments or any acts of self-harm in a round that I am in the back of.I really love debate. I don't like when people do things to make debate less pleasant for others. At the end of the day, debate is a game. I'm likely to dock your speaker points for treating your opponent disrespectfully, excessive cursing, being obnoxious in cross-ex, stealing prep time, etc. The best debaters are intelligent, fast, clear, and strategically use mistakes from their opponent to their advantage. Also, flowing is really important. I've noticed an increase in debaters answering arguments in the speech doc (in some cases, an entire off-case position) that were not read in the debate. Tech > truth.I will be very unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs arguments, anything that happened outside of the round, or disclosure issues.
CPs/ DAs- I am a good judge for this type of debate. I tend to not have strong theory opinions on counterplan theory and can be persuaded either way on most issues. I tend to prefer counterplans that are based in the literature as opposed to a cheating process CP, but I've voted on them before. I enjoy the politix DA as I follow politics and teach AP Gov.
Case- I tend to think most neg teams undercover the case debate in the 1nc.
Ks- If you are reading a more common Kritik such as cap, security, fem IR, settler colonialism, etc. I will be fine. If you are reading high theory, race-based arguments, or less common Kritiks, you need to explain this more since I am less familiar with these arguments or consider reading something else.
Ts- I am an ok judge for topicality, but I often tend to find myself with a lot of unresolved questions at the end of T debates. Try hard to close the loop. What does debate look like under your vision of the topic? What does debate look like under your opponent's vision of the topic? Why is your vision preferable? These are all questions that should be answered for me by the conclusion of the 2ar.
CX- Asking "did you read this" ? or "what card did you stop at" ? definitely counts as CX time. Tag teaming seems to have gotten kind of excessive, especially in high school debate. The partner who is not being CX'd should be prepping their speech and only intervene if it's necessary.
Non-Traditional Debate: I tend to think that the aff should defend a topical plan but- keep reading- that is debatable and I frequently vote for teams that don't defend a plan. However, I have concerns about negative ground against planless affs and tend to lean neg in these debates and often vote for framework.
College Debaters- I am less familiar with the college lit because I primarily a high school coach. If you're going to use an acronym I probably don't know, please say it the first time before abbreviating it.
I also appreciate jokes about Alpharetta debaters or alumni when applicable or being made to laugh in a round.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me at the email address above. Good luck!